similar to: What happened to the proposed Code of Conduct?

This actually was discussed at EuroLLVM. Several other things were occupying my time that have in the last month cleared out, and I'm expecting to have an update to the CoC stuff in the next few weeks. It hasn't been forgotten though. =] On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:20 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chandler, > > It's been 5 months

Great, glad to hear there's an update on the way. Is there anything I can assist with? Philip On 03/22/2016 05:21 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > This actually was discussed at EuroLLVM. > > Several other things were occupying my time that have in the last > month cleared out, and I'm expecting to have an update to the CoC > stuff in the next few weeks. It hasn't

On 5 May 2016 at 22:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Having a code of conduct like this is just as bad as having no code of conduct at all. It trivializes the importance of a code of conduct and its pretty much impossible to enforce. The same way you feel about this code, we feel about the alternative. It's only a matter of perspective. >

I like the NCoC approach, actually. I think the community can manage itself quite well. Echoing a prior response---if this community really needs a set of rules, then it has already deteriorated. We are not there and it doesn't look like we are going in that direction. The FreeBSD CoC also looks reasonable, and if any CoC is needed, I find this one more appealing. -Krzysztof On

> Also, the problem with enumerating all the inacceptable behaviour is > that the text tends to become TL;DR. Which means permanent discomfort: I > never fully read the rules, so I'm never fully sure that I'm not > violating the CoC, nor am I sure whether others violate it. > > In terms of size and complexity, the proposed CoC is shorter than the > typical bulletin

+1 for this TL;DR suggestion - you can guarantee most people would read < 7 short bullet points. Cheers, -Neil. On 06/05/16 15:53, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison via llvm-dev wrote: > For what it's worth, I think this is an improved version of the CoC, > and I'm OK with it. Thanks to Chandler and all those who have been > working on it. > > It's not perfect ---

On 5/5/2016 4:19 PM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > Having a code of conduct like this is just as bad as having no code of conduct at all. It trivializes the importance of a code of conduct and its pretty much impossible to enforce. Code of conduct should reflect the community standards, not define them. These standards come from the minds of the members of the community. A CoC that

Joachim, I think we pretty strongly disagree here. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev: > > > > This is a *specific* thing that is called out time and again as important > > to having an effective code of conduct in all of the research I have

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: >> On 13 October 2015 at 17:16, Kuperstein, Michael M via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> The FreeBSD CoC is, IMHO, much better in this respect ( https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html ).

On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite > rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our attendance from > 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and many > new to the community), it seems important to have a code of

On 5 May 2016 at 23:06, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote: > The point is that you wouldn’t know that from looking at the alternative code of conduct. I would need to spend months pouring through mailing lists posts and watching the community to feel its a good and safe place. Right, this is a very good point for having something written down. > One of the many reasons

On 13 October 2015 at 17:16, Kuperstein, Michael M via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The FreeBSD CoC is, IMHO, much better in this respect ( https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html ). Nice! This is so succinct and beautiful! It doesn't need an overseeing foundation to take opaque decisions, and focus on what's really important: the code. I

Dear Colleagues/Developers/R enthusiasts, Would it be possible to develop a code of conduct (CoC) document for R lists, CRAN submissions that all developers/maintainers to follow? This may help all of us to better communicate and move forward together. There is a similar effort from Python community, here are the links: * https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2017-August/022044.html *

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Chris > Lattner via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 4:36 PM > To: Renato Golin > Cc: llvm-dev > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM > code of conduct > > On May 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at

Am 14.10.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev: > Is there an ongoing problem with the types of discussions on this, and > other LLVM-related lists? Not currently. > What problem is the proposed CoC trying to solve? Stop possible future harrassment before it can happen. It's a legitimate concern actually.

While I'm replying to Renato here, that is mostly because there are too many replies on this subject, and too many of them have wandered off into other topics. I want to specifically address the concerns with verbosity. For example: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:52 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > I also agree that some descriptions are too verbose, and trying to

Hi, I've cross-posted this to freedesktop@, as the xdg@ list is only used for actual specification development. On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 00:36, Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, we were thinking of asking if freedesktop would host Kazan (https://github.com/kazan-3d/kazan) for us, however some of our community members have objections with how freedesktop's

On 6 May 2016 at 22:21, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really in fear, how many are just trying to impose their mindset without actually planning to contribute in earnest, how many are so fearful that they should really seek professional help? > > And this is illustrating my

On 05/06/2016 11:03 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > > > On 5/6/16 11:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> >> On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev wrote: >>>>> Say what you want about the Linux kernel community, but you can't >>>>> call >>>>> it immature. You can call the behaviour of some of its

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:32 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10/14/2015 8:22 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > Stop possible future harrassment before it can happen. > > > > It's a legitimate concern actually. > > CoC is not going to stop or prevent any harassment. Do you have any data to